It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes allowe
+1 from me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:07 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we
+1 -C
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:07 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> autho
+1
I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
otherwise). People have said in the past, "you should have veto so you're
not forced to work with somebody you dislike." I respond, "grow up. we w
On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
> votes are
gt; To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Joe Schaefer
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lig
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> authority over personnel matters makes little s
On 1/30/2012 7:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Lemme get this straight: a person who makes a class-action
> veto against a whole swath of people should have those votes
> upheld to protect that person from the tyranny of the majority?
No. Joe, take a break. Then come back, and reread both threads,
On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr."
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of hav
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> - Original
On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
> v
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> This is getting sillier by the moment...
I don't care for these kinds of statements. Please try to keep the
conversation civil.
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: g
On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel vo
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:47 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr."
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
It is clear that
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 23:53, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
>> PMC.
On 1/31/12 3:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original
On 31 January 2012 00:06, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
> votes
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 31 January 2012 00:06, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
>> PMC. T
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 31 January 2012 00:06, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
>> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
>> PMC. T
Hi Guys,
On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>
>> Oh, so you want a supermajority in terms of those who have voted, not in
>> terms of the membership of the IPMC? Not unreasonable. Let's see what
>> others think.
>
> I would easily +1 a proposal with a 3/4 majority of the *
On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto
> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this
> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel
> votes are
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Any other rational opinions?
I don't recall a case where a candidate was not elected because of an
unnecessarily strict -1. All I'm seeing now is abstract discussion
about hypothetical votes and a lot of hot air.
I'd go for a policy vot
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:17 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>> Oh, so you want a supermajority in terms of those who have voted, not in
>>> terms of the membership of the IPMC? Not unreasonable. Let's see what
>>> othe
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Joe Schaefer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> It
ing
> To: general
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Joe Schaefer
> wrote:
>> Any other rational opinions?
>
> I don't recall a ca
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:18, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Any other rational opinions?
>
> I don't recall a case where a candidate was not elected because of an
> unnecessarily strict -1. All I'm seeing now is abstract discussion
> about
On 1/31/2012 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> Plainly wrong: It has been repeatedly established (even by the Chair)
> that policy decisions here are not subject to veto. This is one of those
> times.
> Furthermore the documentation [1] clearly points out that procedural issues
> are to be deci
On 1/31/2012 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> I'm a little unclear on wrowe's original message talking about
> "supermajority" and whether that was for *addition* or for *removal*.
> I'm assuming that it was only about addition because I've never seen
> any PMC-based ejection of a PMC member. The B
- Original Message -
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: Joe Schaefer
> Cc: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>
> On 1/31/2012 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Any other rational opinions?
>
> I don't recall a case where a candidate was not elected because of an
> unnecessarily strict -1. All I'm seeing now is abstract discussion
> abo
Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:12:50 -0500:
> In that light, we're talking about "what kinds of voting results
> should be forwarded by the Chair?" If the Chair sends a request to the
> Board to add somebody and reports "5 +1 votes, 2 -1 votes"... would
> that be sufficient? 2/3rds or
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:20, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:12:50 -0500:
>> In that light, we're talking about "what kinds of voting results
>> should be forwarded by the Chair?" If the Chair sends a request to the
>> Board to add somebody and reports "5 +1 vo
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> There are currently 29 outstanding no votes made on
> a discussion thread merely for the fact that those
> candidates names were listed.
I count those as votes once I see them in an actual VOTE thread. We've
had similar VOTEs earlier, th
On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
> simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
> otherwise). People have said in the past, "you should have veto so you're
> not forced to work with so
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
>> simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
>> otherwise). People have said in the past, "
On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
>> simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
>> otherwise). People have said in the past, "you
On 1/31/2012 3:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is
> significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure
> itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have
> much to say against that. Note
Hi Roy,
On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>
>> On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
>>> simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corpor
On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> In replacement, I propose the following concrete actions:
>
> 1. Move the Incubator process/policy/documentation, etc., to ComDev - I
> agree with gstein on this. I think it could be maintained by the ASF community
> folks there, and upda
May I suggest bumping thoughts of cashiering the incubator to its own
thread? It seems a much bigger question than whether to prevent
vetoes on PPMC membership votes.
Don
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>> In
42 matches
Mail list logo
